Editorial: Katrina turned tide for schools

Remarkable transformations sometimes can follow natural disasters. Case in point: What happened with Louisiana public schools after the state was inundated in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina.

The state's schools long had languished among the worst in the nation, based on test scores. In late 2005, the New Orleans Public Schools system began a shift to where, today, most children attend charter schools. Charters are public schools that work outside rigid state and local school guidelines, allowing for more flexibility and adapting to student needs.

Reported New Orleans magazine in February, "The school system that once consistently tied with another Louisiana parish for dead last in academic achievement and, ultimately, one of the worst in the nation, now boasts double-digit improvements in test scores, graduation rates and national college entrance exams for black students."

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal took office in 2008 and pushed for more reforms, including expanding school tuition vouchers statewide. The program attaches funding to individual students, who then can use that "voucher" to pay for tuition at not only public schools, but private and parochial schools. It's much like scholarships or the G.I. Bill, which fund tuition not only at state-run colleges and universities, buy also at private schools.

The Louisiana voucher program just received a setback from the Louisiana Supreme Court. It ruled that vouchers cannot be funded through a Louisiana program called the Minimum Foundation Program, which provides yearly money to help students in the worst-performing schools. Justice John Weimer, author of the majority court opinion, said the Louisiana "constitution prohibits those funds from being expended on the tuition costs of nonpublic schools and nonpublic entities."

But all is not lost, William R. Maurer told us; he's executive director of the Institute for Justice, which argued the case on the side of families that used the vouchers. "It means there can be a voucher program in Louisiana, just not with this funding program," he said.

Mr. Maurer said the court erred because MFP funding was intended to guarantee a minimum education level for students, which the vouchers have done. Moreover, the original program started with only traditional public schools, but over the years that mold already had been broken with the court allowing money to go to charter schools, lab schools and creative arts schools.

However, he said the state court's decision will not be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Now, students, parents and teachers will have to come for funding every year before the state Legislature," he said.

Californians are familiar with the difficulty of passing voucher reforms, an idea that long was promoted by the late Nobel economics laureate Milton Friedman. Overwhelmed by intense teacher-union financial opposition, Proposition 174 in 1993 and Proposition 38 in 2000 were handily defeated at the polls.

However, vouchers have succeeded in Milwaukee, Wis., and Cleveland, especially in lifting test scores for inner-city students. Along with charters, magnet schools and "trigger" laws that allow parents to replace a failing school administration, vouchers help give parents and students choices and bring needed competition to often stagnant school policies and programs.

We hope Gov. Jindal and voucher parents, students and teachers keep pushing the reform in the Bayou State. And, who knows, vouchers even might make a comeback in California. Let's hope it doesn't take a disaster to do so.